ML21189A176

Advanced Reactor Generic Environmental Impact (Anr GEIS) Statement Plant Parameter Envelope and Site Parameter Envelope Table

ML21189A176
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/08/2021
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Willingham L
References
Download: ML21189A176 (12)

Text

APPENDIX G - PLANT PARAMETER ENVELOPE AND SITE PARAMETER ENVELOPE The interdisciplinary team of subject matter experts assigned to prepare the advanced nuclear reactor (ANR) generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) used the following methodology to develop the plant parameter envelope (PPE) and site parameter envelope (SPE) values and assumptions in this appendix:

• regulatory limits and permitting requirements relevant to the resource as established by Federal, State, or local agencies

• relevant information obtained from other NRC GEISs, including the License Renewal GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) and the Continued Storage GEIS (NRC 2014-TN4117)

• empirical knowledge gained from conducting evaluations and analyses for past new reactor EISs

• values and assumptions derived from other documents applying a PPE/SPE approach (such as the National Reactor Innovation Center PPE Report [NRIC 2021-TN6940])

• subject matter expertise and/or development of calculations and formulas based upon education and experience with the resource For details about the PPE and SPE values and assumptions, see the applicable resource section in Chapter 3. The PPE and SPE values and assumptions are used only to support the findings for Category 1 issues. Category 2 issues do not have PPE and SPE values and assumptions.

Draft NUREG-XXXX G-1 May 2022

Table G-1 PPE and SPE for ANRs Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology Reactor Site Criteria 10 CFR Part 100 (TN282) Subpart B Evaluation Factors for Stationary Power Reactor Site Applications on or After January 10, Adherence to siting criteria regulations has been determined to minimize 1997 impacts associated with environmental review evaluations.

Draft NUREG-XXXX Reactor siting factors to be considered by the applicant shall include:

1. 10 CFR 100.20 Factors to be considered when evaluating sites

2. 10 CFR 100.21 Non-seismic siting criteria

3. 10 CFR 100.23 Geologic and seismic siting criteria Site Size and Location 1. 100 ac The NRC staff recognizes that, without a detailed consideration of specific

2. Complies with applicable zoning land use conditions, as much as 100 ac of land can be dedicated to a

3. Consistent with the objectives of any relevant land use plans project within a feasible setting without noticeably influencing the

4. Complies with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq; TN1243) and the Farmland Protection availability of land for other purposes. The NRC staff assumes any Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. §§ 4201 et seq.; TN708), if applicable proposed project would meet NRC siting regulations in 10 CFR Part 100

5. Completed structures would not be sited within 1 mi of and would not be visible from Federal or State parks or wilderness (TN282), or the applicable NRC siting regulations in place at the time the areas, areas designated as Class I under Section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7472-TN6954), or a Wild and Scenic application is docketed. Establishing industrial facilities close to River or a National Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation residences can affect the use and enjoyment of residents who desire

6. No existing residential areas within 0.5 mi of site home environments that are less influenced by the sights, noise, odors, and other parameters acceptable to industrial and commercial workplace settings. A minimum distance of 0.5 mi bounds a generic determination that potential conflicts with residences would be SMALL, although a consideration of specific site conditions could indicate that closer distances could still be SMALL. An even greater distance (1 mi) is needed to bound a generic determination that a project would have only a G-1 SMALL potential for adversely affecting features such as Federal or State parks and conservation areas, whose qualities are even more sensitive to industrial influences.

Permanent Footprint of 1. 30 ac of vegetated lands The total footprint of disturbance within areas of existing vegetation (30 ac Disturbance 2. Counts only land that supports vegetation as of project baseline permanent plus an additional 20 ac of temporary for a total of 50 ac)

3. No prime or unique farmland, or other farmland of statewide or local importance (see Section 3.1.1 for definitions); or site constitutes an estimate by NRC staff of how much natural habitat does not abut actively managed agricultural land and is not situated in a predominantly agricultural landscape excluding unusually sensitive habitats can be disturbed, regardless of

4. No floodplains, surface water features, riparian habitat, late successional vegetation, or dedicated conservation land geometric shape, in almost any landscape without noticeably altering

5. No more than 0.5 ac of wetlands in permanent or temporary disturbance on the site or ROWs wildlife numbers or behavior. The value of 0.5 ac of wetlands

6. The site and any existing ROWs do not have legacy contamination requiring cleanup to protect human health or the corresponds to the upper ceiling for project-wide impacts on wetlands environment under many Nationwide Permits (33 CFR Part 330; TN4318) determined

7. No Individual Permits required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1344-TN1019) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to constitute minimal

8. Use of best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management impact.

9. Implementation of mitigation specified in Clean Water Act permits

10. Habitat is not known to be potentially suitable for one or more Federal or State threatened or endangered species Temporary Footprint of 1. Additional 20 ac of vegetated land This additional temporary disturbance is factored together with the Disturbance 2. Counts only land that supports vegetation as of project baseline assumption of no more than 30 ac permanent disturbance into the overall May 2022

3. Meets assumptions for permanent footprint disturbance area of 50 ac (see above). Temporary disturbance of most

4. Restored to original grade and seeded or planted with indigenous vegetation once construction is complete. natural habitats followed by restoration constitutes less impact per acre than permanent or long-term disturbance. The limit of 0.5 ac of wetland impacts in most Nationwide Permits (33 CFR Part 330; TN4318) is a project-wide limit, inclusive of all associated permanent and temporary impacts.

Offsite rights-of-way (ROW) 1. No longer than 1 mi and no wider than 100 ft, but allows for unlimited additional mileage for linear features built within Dimensions of up to 1 mi long and 100 ft wide constitutes an upper existing ROWs or directly adjacent to existing ROWs or public highways estimate by the NRC staff as to how much new ROW can be established

2. Does not cause the total project-wide wetland fill to exceed 0.5 ac anywhere in most rural landscapes without noticeably affecting

3. Would not involve ground disturbance to streams greater than 10 ft in width fragmented land uses or natural habitats, without consideration of project-

4. Does not cross or pass within 1 mi of parks, wildlife refuges, or conservation lands specific factors. The staff, based on its experience conducting

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology

5. Does not cross or pass within 1 mi of, or is not visible from, Federal or State parks or wilderness areas, areas designated as environmental reviews, concludes that co-location of new facilities within Class I under Section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7472-TN6954), or a Wild and Scenic River or a National existing ROWs or in new ROWs immediately adjacent to existing ROWs Heritage River, or a river of similar State designation or along existing roadways results in minimal land use or ecological

6. May span wetlands, waters of the United States, floodplains, shoreline, or riparian lands impacts. Such ROWs do not fragment existing land uses or natural

7. Any new transmission poles or towers would be constructed outside of wetlands and floodplains habitats or introduce utility structures to settings previously lacking such

8. Pipelines or buried utilities would be directionally drilled under surface waters to avoid physical disturbance of shorelines or facilities. Additional assumptions address sensitive facilities, which, if Draft NUREG-XXXX bottom substrates present, would necessitate a project-specific analysis to assess the

9. Use of BMPs for soil erosion, sediment control, and stormwater management significance of impacts. The limit of 0.5 ac of wetland impacts in most

10. Implementation of mitigation specified in Clean Water Act permits Nationwide Permits (33 CFR Part 330; TN4318) is a project-wide limit,

11. No physical disturbance to streams greater than 10 ft in width below the ordinary high-water mark inclusive of impacts from all project elements, including offsite features.

12. Access roads crossing non-jurisdictional surface water features meet the substantive requirements of Nationwide Permits 12 or 14 regarding limits on disturbance and requirements for mitigation Maximum Building and Structure 1. 50 ft, except 200 ft for meteorological towers and 100 feet for mechanical draft cooling towers Fifty feet constitutes a conservative estimate of building heights that Height 2. None of the structures would be built within or be visible from Federal or State parks or wilderness areas, other areas would not likely result in significant visual intrusion or wildlife collision designated as Class I under Section 162 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7472-TN6954), or designated Wild and Scenic mortality in most settings. This conclusion is based upon NRC reviews in Rivers past reactor EISs. The staff recognizes that meteorological towers must

3. No transmission poles/towers over 100 ft be taller to function, and that there would be no need for more than one or two meteorological towers per site. A transmission line with poles or towers over 100 FT would be visible in a forested area and would highly visible in an open area. Most poles of under 100 ft are not highly distinct visually from the distribution poles for lower voltage electric lines that are common visual features in most settings. Mechanical draft cooling towers are typically 50-100 ft in height based off previous new reactor EIS analyses.

Intake and Discharge 1. Adhere to the best available technology requirements of Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) (33 U.S.C. § 1326-TN4823) Requirements established in the subject regulations have been developed

2. Operated in compliance with CWA Section 316 (b) and 40 CFR 125.83 (TN254), including compliance with monitoring and to be protective of aquatic biota, including protection of aquatic biota from G-2 recordkeeping requirements in 40 CFR 125.87 and 40 CFR 125.88, respectively excessive impingement or entrainment.

3. Best available technologies are employed in the design and operation of intake and discharge structures to minimize alterations due to scouring, sediment transport, increased turbidity, and erosion

4. Adherence to requirements in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or a given State In-Water Structures (including 1. Constructed in compliance with provisions of the CWA Section 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1344-TN1019) and Section 10 of the Rivers Requirements of existing regulations related to in-water construction are intake and discharge structures) and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq.; TN660) protective of aquatic resources and have been found to keep the adverse

2. Adverse effects of building activities controlled and localized using BMPs such as installation of turbidity curtains or impacts of building activities localized and temporary.

installation of cofferdams

3. Any shorelines or other areas temporarily disturbed to build intake and discharge structures would be restored using regionally indigenous vegetation

4. Construction duration would be less than 7 years Cooling Towers 1. No natural draft cooling towers Various past new reactor EISs indicate that natural draft cooling towers

2. Would be equipped with drift eliminators are tall structures over 200 ft in height that may be visible from substantial

3. Makeup water would be fresh (salinity less than 1 ppt) distances and from which salt drift and fogging may affect substantial areas of offsite land.

May 2022 Other Cooling Features 1. No once-through cooling Once-through cooling systems have a substantial potential for significant

2. No new cooling ponds impacts on aquatic biota from entrainment and impingement and are

3. No new reservoirs essentially not possible due to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act

4. No spray irrigation ponds (33 U.S.C. § 1326-TN4823). Operation of cooling ponds can have potentially significant effects on aquatic and terrestrial biota. Building reservoirs can affect large areas of aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including sensitive wetland, floodplain, and riparian habitats.

Copper Alloy Tubes 1. No use of copper alloy tubes According to the License Renewal GEIS, copper alloy tubes can introduce metal contaminants into discharged blowdown water that can be harmful to aquatic biota.

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology Criteria Pollutant and Hazardous 1. Criteria pollutants emitted from vehicles and standby power equipment during construction and operations are less than Air Pollutant Emissions Clean Air Act de minimis levels set by the EPA if located in a nonattainment or maintenance area Requirements of existing regulations related to air emissions have been

2. Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions will be within regulatory limits found to be protective of human health and the environment.

3. Construction and operation activities meet the permitting requirements of applicable State and local agencies

4. Use of BMPs for dust control Greenhouse Gas Emissions ANR construction and operation, including uranium fuel cycle activities, transportation of fuel and waste, and decommissioning Appendix H provides estimates of emissions of greenhouse gases Draft NUREG-XXXX will emit no more than 2,534,000 MT CO2(e) for the lifespan of the project of 97 years associated with building, operation, fuel cycle, transportation of fuel and waste, and decommissioning.

1. Construction equipment would emit 78,000 MT CO2(e) during a 7-year construction period

2. Construction workforce would emit 86,000 MT CO2(e) during a 7-year construction period

3. Plant operations would emit 362,000 MT CO2(e) during a 40- year period

4. Plant workforce would emit 272,000 MT CO2(e) during a 40- year period

5. The uranium fuel cycle would emit 1,620,000 MT CO2(e) during a 40-year period. Transportation of Fuel and Waste would emit 42,000 MT CO2(e) during a 40-year period

6. Decommissioning equipment would emit 38,000 MT CO2(e) during a 10-year period

7. Decommissioning workforce would emit 16,000 MT CO2(e) during a 10-year period

8. SAFSTOR workforce would emit 20,000 MT CO2e during a 40-year period Previous new reactor reviews which have a larger fuel cycle contribution G-3 based on Table S-3 have concluded that the impact of the contribution of greenhouse gases is SMALL.

Cooling System Air Quality 1. Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions will be within regulatory limits The License Renewal GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) and supplemental EISs

2. Subject to State permitting requirements for individual plant relicensing evaluated the impact of continued operation of cooling towers, including natural draft cooling towers, at existing power plants for an additional 20 years and found the impacts to be SMALL.

Ozone and NOx Emissions Transmission line voltage no higher than 1200 kV Impacts of existing transmission lines on air quality are addressed in the License Renewal GEIS (NRC 2013-TN2654) and Supplemental EISs for individual plant relicensing, which have found impacts to be SMALL. The License Renewal GEIS evaluated lines up to 1,200 kV.

Total Plant Water Demand 1. Less than or equal to a daily average 6,000 gpm The NRC staff developed the total plant water demand PPE by

2. The total plant water demand accounts for the maximum amount of water supply required for all plant needs considering water requirements for all plant systems from the set of

3. The total plant water demand may include water from multiple sources (e.g., surface water, groundwater, and/or municipal currently known ANR designs considered by NRIC (2021-TN6940). The water sources to meet certain water quality criteria) NRC staff rounded this value up to the nearest 1,000 gpm to derive the PPE.

May 2022 Municipal Water Availability The amount available from municipal water systems exceeds the amount of municipal water required by the plant (gpm) Municipal water availability at a site is the amount of excess capacity in the municipal systems that is available after accounting for all existing and If municipal water is used for plant water supply: planned future uses. The NRC staff can generically conclude that the proposed projects municipal water requirements would not noticeably

1. Municipal Water Availability accounts for all existing and planned future uses affect water resources at the site, if bounded by municipal water

2. An agreement or permit for the usage amount can be obtained from the municipality availability and the capacity of the municipal systems.

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology Surface Water Availability - 1. The average rate of plant withdrawal does not exceed 3 percent of the 95 percent exceedance daily flow for the waterbody The staff reviewed surface water withdrawals from and related impacts on Flowing (Stream or River) (not (cfs) flowing waterbodies versus low-flow metrics at the of currently operating applicable if plant does not use 2. Average plant water withdrawals do not reduce discharge from the flowing waterbody by more than 3 percent of the and newly licensed large light-water reactors (LWRs). In the reviews of cooling water) 95 percent exceedance daily flow and do not prevent the maintenance of applicable instream flow requirements previous analyses, the staff found that water withdrawal rates at or below

3. The 95 percent exceedance daily flow accounts for existing and planned future withdrawals 3 percent of the water available during low flow conditions did not result in

4. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional or tribal governing noticeable impacts. Therefore, the NRC staff generically concluded that Draft NUREG-XXXX authorities plant surface water withdrawals that do not exceed 3 percent of the

5. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed 95 percent exceedance daily flow in the flowing waterbody used as the

6. Changes in littoral zone water levels and hydroperiod resulting from surface water withdrawals are within historical annual or source, while accounting for all existing and planned withdrawals, would seasonal fluctuations not noticeably affect surface water resources at the site.

7. If withdrawals are from an estuary or intertidal zone, then changes to salinity gradients are within the normal tidal or seasonal movements that characterize the waterbody Plant water withdrawal may alter salinity gradients in flowing water bodies. The License Renewal GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288 and NRC 2013-TN2654) evaluated the impact of plant withdrawals on altering salinity gradients at operating plants and found the impacts to be SMALL if they are localized and are within the normal tidal or seasonal movements of salinity gradients that characterize the waterbody.

Surface Water Availability - 1. Water availability of the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones exceeds the amount of The staff can generally conclude that the total plant water demand of Non-Flowing (not applicable if water required by the plant 6,000 gpm would not result in water use conflicts in the Great Lakes, the plant does not use cooling 2. Water availability is demonstrated by the ability to obtain a withdrawal permit issued by State, regional or tribal governing Gulf of Mexico, oceans, estuaries, and intertidal zones, because the plant water) authorities demand would be negligible as compared to water availability. The staff

3. Water rights for the withdrawal amount are obtainable, if needed acknowledges, however, that smaller non-flowing surface waterbodies

4. Changes in littoral zone water levels and hydroperiod resulting from surface water withdrawals are within historical annual or (e.g., inland lakes, man-made ponds, and reservoirs) have limited water seasonal fluctuations availability. These waterbodies are not included in the staffs generic

5. If withdrawals are from an estuary or intertidal zone, then changes to salinity gradients are within the normal tidal or analysis.

seasonal movements that characterize the waterbody G-4 6. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. §§ 1451 et seq.; TN1243) consistency determination is obtainable, if Plant water withdrawal may alter salinity gradients in non-flowing applicable waterbodies. The License Renewal GEIS (NRC 1996-TN288 and NRC 2013-TN2654) evaluated the impact of plant withdrawals on altering salinity gradients at operating plants and found the impacts to be SMALL if they are localized and are within the normal tidal or seasonal movements of salinity gradients that characterize the waterbody.

Municipal Systems Available 1. The available capacity of the municipal systems to treat effluent exceeds the expected amount of plant effluent (gpm) Municipal systems available receiving and treatment capacity is Capacity to Receive and Treat 2. Municipal Systems Available Capacity to Receive and Treat Plant Effluent accounts for all existing and planned future determined while accounting for all existing and reasonably foreseeable Plant Effluent discharges future discharges. The NRC staff can generically conclude that plant

3. Agreement to discharge to a municipal treatment system is obtainable effluent treated by a municipal system would not noticeably affect water resources at the site, if bounded by the municipal systems available capacity. The constituents present in plant effluent are addressed in the municipal systems discharge permits.

Groundwater Withdrawal for 1. Less than or equal to 50 gpm This site parameter was based on the staffs determination in the License Plant Uses 2. Withdrawal results in no more than 1 ft of drawdown at the site boundary Renewal GEIS that 100 gpm groundwater withdrawal creates negligible

3. Withdrawals are not derived from an EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer, or from any aquifer designated by a State, tribe, or small impacts at operating nuclear power plants because this use rate May 2022 or regional authority to have special protections to limit drawdown would not generally lower groundwater levels beyond the site boundary.

4. Withdrawals meet the permitting requirements of applicable State and local agencies The groundwater withdrawal rate parameter was adjusted lower based on

5. Changes in wetland water levels and hydroperiod resulting from groundwater use are within historical annual or seasonal simplified modeling showing that effects on groundwater levels at the site fluctuations boundary from pumping 50 gpm on a 100 ac site would approximate the

6. Parameter value of 50 gpm is the total withdrawal for all plant uses (excluding dewatering) effects from pumping 100 gpm on a larger site the size of a typical large LWR. The staff assumed that groundwater withdrawals for plant uses would result in less than a 1 ft reduction in groundwater levels at the site boundary. The threshold of 1 ft was selected as a de minimis value likely to be less than the natural annual fluctuations in groundwater levels at most sites.

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology Groundwater Withdrawal for 1. Dewatering rate less than or equal to 50 gpm The groundwater dewatering parameter was based on the staffs Excavation or Foundation 2. Dewatering results in negligible drawdown at the site boundary determination that impacts would be small if dewatering would not lower Dewatering 3. Dewatering discharge has minimal effects on the quality of the receiving waterbody (e.g., as demonstrated by conformance groundwater levels beyond the site boundary, which is consistent with the with NPDES permit requirements) License Renewal GEIS. Based on simplified modeling, the staff

4. Changes in wetland water levels and hydroperiod resulting from dewatering are within historical annual or seasonal determined that, relative to the plant site area, the effects on groundwater fluctuations levels caused by dewatering withdrawals of 50 gpm at a 100 ac ANR site Draft NUREG-XXXX

5. Parameter value of 50 gpm represents the long-term dewatering rate (the initial rate may be larger) would be similar to the effects caused by dewatering withdrawals of 100 gpm on a larger site the size of a typical large LWR. Consistent with the smaller site area for the ANR, the staff assumed in this simplified modeling that the area to be dewatered and the depth of groundwater drawdown at the excavation/foundation would be smaller for an ANR than for a typical large LWR.

Groundwater Quality 1. The plant is outside the recharge area for any EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer or any aquifer designated to have Because groundwater quality degradation would have the greatest effects special protections by a State, tribal, or regional authority on other users of the resource when groundwater at the plant site

2. The plant is outside the wellhead protection area or designated contributing area for any public water supply well contributes to the source water for other users, the potential impacts on

3. No planned plant discharges to the subsurface (by infiltration or injection), including stormwater discharge groundwater quality from plant construction and operation will be

4. Applicable requirements and guidance on spill prevention and control are followed, including relevant BMPs and Integrated minimized when the plant is located outside the recharge areas for critical Pollution Prevention Plan groundwater supplies and when there are no planned discharges to the

5. A groundwater protection program conforming to NEI 07-07 (NEI 2019-TN6775) is established and followed subsurface. In addition, spill prevention/control requirements and a groundwater protection program help to prevent releases of contaminants to groundwater and to minimize the impacts of any releases that inadvertently occur.

Impacts on Aquatic Biota 1. Adherence to regulatory limits in 40 CFR 125.84 (TN254)

2. Adherence to requirements in NPDES permits issued by the EPA or a given State Requirements of existing regulations related to aquatic biota impacts are G-5 protective of aquatic resources and have been found to keep adverse impacts localized and temporary.

Radiological Environmental For protection against radiation, the applicant must meet the regulatory requirements of:

Hazards Requirements of existing regulations related to radiological health have

1. 10 CFR 20.1101 Radiation Protection Programs (10 CFR Part 20-TN283) if issued a license been found to be protective of workers and members of the public and are

2. 10 CFR 20.1201 Occupational dose limits for adults minimized through a radiation protection program that implements

3. 10 CFR 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public ALARA.

4. Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20 Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage

5. 10 CFR 50.34a (10 CFR Part 50-TN249) Design objectives for equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluentsnuclear power reactors

6. 10 CFR 50.36a Technical specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors Applicants would demonstrate in their application that any radiological nonhuman biota doses would be below IAEA (1992-TN712) and NCRP (1991-TN729) guidelines Application contains sufficient technical information for the staff to complete the detailed technical safety review May 2022 Application will be found to be in compliance by the staff with the above regulations through a radiation protection program and an effluent release monitoring program Nonradiological Environmental 1. The applicant must adhere to all applicable Federal, State, local, or tribal regulatory limits and permit conditions for chemical Requirements of existing regulations related to nonradiological Hazards hazards, biological hazards, and physical hazards from a proposed advanced reactor environmental hazards are protective of human health and have been

2. The applicant will follow nonradiological public and occupational health BMPs and mitigation measures, as appropriate, to found to keep the adverse impacts of building and operations-related govern building and operations-related activities activities localized and temporary.

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology Wildlife-Related Noise 85 dBA 50 ft from the source NRC staff has historically relied upon the Federal Highway Administration Generation Construction Noise Handbook (WSDOT 2017-TN5313) to determine that a noise level of 85 dBA 50 ft from the source is typical.

Human-Related Noise 1. 65 dBA at site boundary, unless a relevant State or local noise abatement law or ordinance sets a different threshold, which The License Renewal GEIS (NUREG-1437; NRC 2013-TN2654)

Generation would then be the presumptive threshold for PPE purposes. determined that noise levels are considered acceptable if the day-night

2. If an applicant cannot meet the 65 dBA threshold through mitigation, then the applicant must obtain a various or exception average sound level outside a residence is less than 65 dBA. This limit is Draft NUREG-XXXX with the relevant State or local regulator. also included in the NRC Environmental Standard Review Plans

3. Project will implement BMPs, including such as modeling, foliage planting, construction of noise buffers, and the timing of (NUREG-1555; NRC 2000-TN614).

construction and/or operation activities.

Radiological Waste Applicants must meet the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 (TN283) (e.g. 20.1406 and Subpart K), 10 CFR Part 61 Requirements of existing regulations related to radiological waste Management (TN252), 10 CFR Part 71 (TN301), and 10 CFR Part 72 (TN4884) management have been found to be protective of human health and the environment.

Quantities of LLRW generated at an ANR would be less than the quantities of LLRW generated at existing nuclear power plants, which generate an average of 21,200 ft3 (600 m3) and 2,000 Ci (7.4 x 1013 Bq) per year for boiling water reactors and half that amount for pressurized water reactors (NRC 2013-TN2654)

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) Small Quantity Generator (EPA 2020-TN6590) for Mixed Waste Nonradiological Waste 1. Applicants must meet all applicable permit conditions, regulations, and BMPs related to solid, liquid, and gaseous waste Requirements of existing regulations and applicable permits related to Management management nonradiological waste management have been found to be protective of

2. For hazardous waste generation, applicants must meet the conformity with the appropriate hazard waste quantity generation human health and the environment and have been found to keep the level in accordance with RCRA (EPA 2020-TN6590) adverse impacts of building and operation activities localized and

3. For sanitary waste, applicants must treat sanitary waste in a permitted process temporary.

4. Perform mitigation measures, to the extent practicable, such as recycling, process improvements, or using a less hazardous substance G-6 Postulated Accidents For design basis accidents,1 the exclusion area boundary maximum total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) for any 2-hour period Requirements of existing regulations related to postulated accidents are and the low-population zone maximum TEDE for the duration of the accident release protective of human health.

For accidents involving releases of hazardous chemicals: The applicant would have to demonstrate meeting the dose requirements contained in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) (TN249) Design objectives for

• ANR inventory of a regulated substance is less than its Threshold Quantity (TQ). TQs are found in 40 CFR 68.130, equipment to control releases of radioactive material in effluents - nuclear Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 (TN5494); and power reactors, or 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1) (TN251), Contents of applications;

• ANR inventory of an EHS is less than its Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ). TPQs are found in 40 CFR Part 355, technical information, or 10 CFR 52.79(a)(1)(A), Contents of applications; Appendices A and B (TN5493). technical information in Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), as applicable.

A cost screening analysis determines that the maximum benefit for avoiding an accident is so small that a SAMDA analysis is not justified based on a minimum cost to design an appropriate SAMDA. For hazardous chemical accidents, the applicant would make a comparison of hazardous chemical inventories to the TQs found in 40 The proposed site is not within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit CFR 68.130, Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 (TN5494); and the TPQs in 40 CFR Part 355, Appendices A and B (TN5493).

May 2022 For SAMDAs, the staff expects that the safety analysis would have core damage frequencies (CDFs) that would likely be substantially less than CDFs associated with the current reactor fleet. For non-LWR SAMA screening and assessments, event or release category frequency could be used in place of CDFs. In such cases a cost screening could determine that the maximum benefit for avoiding an accident is so small that a SAMDA is not justified based on a minimum cost to design an 1For the purposes of this GEIS, Design Basis Accidents are related to a spectrum of accidents that will be evaluated for satisfying siting requirements (e.g., 10 CFR Part 100-TN282) and the safety analysis requirements (e.g., 10 CFR Part 50-TN249, 10 CFR Part 52-TN251) or the applicable NRC safety and siting regulations in place at the time the application is docketed).

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology appropriate SAMDA. This cost screening process would be based on the available risk information from the safety analysis report and apply the cost formulas from NUREG/BR-0058 (NRC 2020-TN6806).

Acts of terrorism: If within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appropriate staff analysis would be Draft NUREG-XXXX performed based in part on the physical protection requirements under 10 CFR Part 73 (TN423).

Site Employment Peak project-related in-migrating workforce including families does not exceed established local planning and growth projections Some construction and operations workers and their families are assumed for infrastructure and service demands to relocate to the economic region of the proposed project. Staff assumes growth planning for the affected infrastructure and services would factor these changes into baseline service demand projections. This assumption is based on staff experience since 2005 for more than 20 license application reviews. Peak project-related workforce increases are assumed to cause minimal effects on most services and infrastructure as long as increases are within local government planning projections.

Community Services and This assumption is based on staff experience since 2005 with more than Infrastructure (e.g., housing 1. the housing vacancy rate in the affected economic region remains at least 5 percent of the housing stock after removing twenty license application reviews. Staff experience indicates a healthy availability; school capacities) sufficient rental units to accommodate the in-migrating construction workers, housing market maintains a vacancy rate of five percent of the total

2. student:teacher ratios in the affected economic region do not decline below the locally mandated levels after including the housing stock, and any local, regional, or state mandated threshold (e.g.,

school age children of the in-migrating construction worker families housing and education resources would be the only a student:teacher ratio) establishes the point of inflection from a SMALL resource areas where noticeable impacts might occur impact to a MODERATE impact.

Transportation Systems and Level of service (LOS) determination for affected roadways does not change Movement between LOS classes (A, B, C, D, E, F) would be noticeable to Traffic drivers. Increased traffic that does not trigger a movement between these classes would be a minor impact. This assumption is based on the G-7 industry-standard LOS approach that has been used in previous NRC NEPA assessments since 2005.

Fuel Cycle Table S-3 bounds the impacts for ANRs fuels, because of uranium fuel cycle changes since WASH-1248 (AEC 1974-TN23), Advances in the uranium fuel cycle (as noted in the values and including: assumptions columns) have reduced the various impacts of the fuel cycle

• Increasing use of in situ leach uranium mining from what is presented in Table S-3. For example, higher burnup levels

• Transitioning of U.S. uranium enrichment technology from gaseous diffusion to gas centrifugation. allow for longer periods of time between refueling thus reducing the

• Current LWRs are using nuclear fuel more efficiently due to higher levels of fuel burnup annual number of fuel assemblies discharged from a reactor. As such,

• Less reliance on coal fired electrical generation plants Table S-3 bounds the impacts associated with ANR fuel cycles.

Requirements of existing regulations related to the safe processing, Sources of enriched lithium would be from U.S. stockpiles or from foreign sources storage, transportation, and security of nuclear material have been found to be protective of workers and members of the public.

Reprocessing capacity up to 900 MTU/yr Fuel fabrication impacts for metal fuel and liquid fueled molten salt are not Uranium fuel cycle impacts will bound the thorium fuel cycle impacts included in the staffs generic analysis.

May 2022 Waste and spent fuel inventories, as well as their associated certified spent fuel shipping and storage containers, are not significantly different from what has been considered for LWR evaluations in NUREG-2157 (NRC 2014-TN4117).

Must satisfy the regulatory requirements of 10 CFR Part 40 (TN4882) Domestic Licensing of Source Material, 10 CFR Part 50 (TN249) Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, 10 CFR Part 70 (TN4883), Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material, 10 CFR Part 71 (TN301), Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material, 10 CFR Part 72 (TN4884),

Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-related Greater Than Class C Waste, and 10 CFR Part 73 (TN423), Physical Protection of Plants and Materials.

Transportation of Unirradiated Consistency with thresholds for the maximum shipment distances in Tables 3.15-2 and 3.15-3, 59,160 km and 118,320 km Accident frequencies for transportation of unirradiated fuel are expected ANR Fuel respectively. to be lower than those used in the analysis in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972-

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology TN22). This is based on the NRC staff review of the trends in The shipments are normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MW(e), i.e., 1,100 MW(e) with an 80 percent capacity factor from improvements in highway safety and security, and an overall reduction in WASH-1238 (AEC 1972-TN22) traffic accident, injury, and fatality rates since WASH-1238 was published.

Although packages for all types of unirradiated fuel have not been The parameter does not apply to situations where an ANR applicant proposes shipping the unirradiated fuel by air, ship or barge; designed or certified by the NRC, these packages must comply with the or where an applicant proposes that an unirradiated fuel transportation package be approved using the provisions of 10 CFR packaging requirements contained in 10 CFR Part 71 (TN301) and for this Draft NUREG-XXXX 71.12, 10 CFR 71.41(c), or 10 CFR 71.41(d) (10 CFR Part 71-TN301) reason, the impacts of radiological accidents during transport of unirradiated fuel to ANR are expected to be smaller than those listed in Table S-4 in 10 CFR 51.52 (TN250).

The PPE applies to situations where the enrichment of the unirradiated ANR fuel is 20 percent or less, based on the unlimited A2 value in Table A-1 in 10 CFR Part 71 for unirradiated uranium enriched to 20 percent or less (10 CFR Part 71-TN301).

Transportation of Radioactive Consistency with thresholds for the maximum shipment distance in Table 3.15-7, 293,145 km. Reviewed impacts from previous LWR early site permit (ESP) and Waste from ANRs combined license (COL) environmental analyses, which have concluded The shipments are normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MWe, i.e., 1,100 MWe with an 80 percent capacity factor and a that the impacts of transportation of radioactive waste were SMALL.

shipment volume of 2.34 m3/shipment from WASH-1238 (AEC 1972-TN22). ANRs are expected to generate lower volumes of low-level radioactive wastes than LWRs because they have less complex systems, structures, This PPE does not apply to situations where an ANR applicant proposes shipping the radioactive waste by air, ship or barge; or and components.

where an applicant proposes that a radioactive waste transportation package be approved using the provisions of 10 CFR 71.12, 10 CFR 71.41(c), or 10 CFR 71.41(d) (10 CFR Part 71-TN301)

Transportation of Irradiated Fuel Consistency with the thresholds for the maximum shipment distances, and burnup included in Tables 3.15-8 through 3.15-10, Reviewed impacts from previous LWR ESP and COL environmental from ANRs 505,393 km and 1,010,786 km. analyses, which have concluded that the impacts of transportation of irradiated fuel were SMALL.

The shipments are normalized to a net electrical output of 880 MWe, i.e., 1,100 MWe with an 80 percent capacity factor and a G-8 shipment capacity of 0.5 MTU/shipment from WASH-1238 (AEC 1972-TN22)

This PPE is based on a maximum peak rod burnup of 62 GWd/MTU for uranium oxide fuel and 133 GWd/MTU for TRISO (TRi-structural ISOtropic) fuel This PPE does not apply to situations where an ANR applicant proposes shipping the irradiated ANR fuel by air, ship or barge; or where an ANR applicant proposes that an irradiated ANR fuel transportation package be approved using the provisions of 10 CFR 71.12, 10 CFR 71.41(c), or 10 CFR 71.41(d) (10 CFR Part 71-TN301) such as might be applied for when shipping a complete irradiated ANR core In addition, the irradiated ANR fuel must be shipped in a transportation package that meets all of the applicable NRC regulations Decommissioning The ANR would be within the bounds of the Decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002-TN665) based on the following assumptions: NUREG-0586 Supplement 1 Decommissioning GEIS (NRC 2002-TN665)

1. Doses to the public would be well below applicable regulatory standards regardless of which decommissioning method Requirements of existing regulations related to decommissioning activities considered in decommissioning GEIS is used have been found to be protective of workers, members of the public, and

2. Occupational doses would be well below applicable regulatory standards during the license term the environment.

3. The quantities of Class C or greater than Class C wastes generated would be comparable to or less than the amounts of May 2022 solid waste generated by reactors licensed before 2002

4. The air quality impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible

5. Measures are readily available to avoid potential significant water quality impacts from erosion or spills. The liquid radioactive waste system design includes features to limit release of radioactive material to the environment, such as pipe chases and tank collection basins. These features will minimize the amount of radioactive material in spills and leakage that would have to be addressed at decommissioning

6. The ecological impacts of decommissioning are expected to be negligible

7. The socioeconomic impacts should be neither detectable nor destabilizing Operational Life of the Plant 40-year operational life, assuming a 40-year license 10 CFR 50.51(a) (TN249) and 52.104 (TN251).

Parameter Values and Assumptions Basis/Methodology Construction Phase of the Plant 7-year construction life to complete construction activities Based off previous new reactor EIS reviews.

Draft NUREG-XXXX G-9 May 2022

References 10 CFR Part 20. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation." TN283.

10 CFR Part 40. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, "Domestic Licensing of Source Material." TN4882.

10 CFR Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities." TN249.

10 CFR Part 51. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, "Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions." TN250.

10 CFR Part 52. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." TN251.

10 CFR Part 61. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste." TN252.

10 CFR Part 70. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 70, "Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material." TN4883.

10 CFR Part 71. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 71, "Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material."

TN301.

10 CFR Part 72. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 72, "Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater than Class C Waste." TN4884.

10 CFR Part 73. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 73, "Physical Protection of Plants and Materials." TN423.

10 CFR Part 100. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria." TN282.

33 CFR Part 330. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Part 330, "Nationwide Permit Program."

TN4318.

40 CFR Part 68. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 68, Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions." TN5494.

40 CFR Part 125. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 125, "Criteria and Standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System." Washington, D.C. TN254.

40 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 302, Emergency Planning and Notification." TN5493.

33 U.S.C. § 1326. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Section 1326, "Thermal Discharges." TN4823.

33 U.S.C. § 1344. U.S. Code Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Chapter 26, "Water Pollution Prevention and Control,"

Subchapter IV, Permits and Licenses, Section 404 "Permits for Dredged or Fill Material." TN1019.

42 U.S.C. § 7472. Clean Air Act Section 162, "Initial Classifications." TN6954.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1972. Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants. WASH-1238, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML14092A626. TN22.

AEC (U.S. Atomic Energy Commission). 1974. Environmental Survey of the Uranium Fuel Cycle. WASH-1248, Washington, D.C.

ADAMS Accession No. ML14092A628. TN23.

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. 16 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. TN1243.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2020. "Categories of Hazardous Waste Generators." Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21141A344. TN6590.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 7 U.S.C. § 4201 et seq. TN708.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Implied by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Technical Report Series 332, Vienna, Austria. TN712.

NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements). 1991. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms.

NCRP Report No. 109, Bethesda, Maryland. TN729.

NEI (Nuclear Energy Institute). 2019. Industry Groundwater Protection Initiative - Final Guidance Document, Rev. 1. NEI-07-07, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML19142A071. TN6775.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1996. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Volumes 1 and 2, NUREG-1437, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML040690705, ML040690738. TN288.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2000. Environmental Standard Review PlanStandard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Main Report and 2007 Revisions, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/toc/. TN614.

Draft NUREG-XXXX G-10 May 2022

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2002. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities: Regarding the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors. NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Volumes 1 and 2, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023470327, ML023500228. TN665.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2013. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants [GEIS]. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023. TN2654.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel. Final Report, NUREG-2157, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Package Accession No. ML14198A440. TN4117.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2020. Policy Issue: Draft Final NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5, "Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission." SECY-20-0008, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Pkg. Accession No. ML19261A277. TN6806.

NRIC (National Reactor Innovation Center). 2021. Advanced Nuclear Reactor Plant Parameter Envelope and Guidance. NRIC ENG-0001, Washington, D.C. ADAMS Accession No. ML21145A416. TN6940.

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq. TN660.

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2017. "Construction Noise Impact Assessment." Chapter 7 in Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects - Advanced Training Manual. Olympia, Washington. Available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2018/01/18/Env-FW-BA_ManualCH07.pdf. TN5313.

Draft NUREG-XXXX G-11 May 2022